...we were orphaned during the time of the Great Spiritual and Theological Divorce 1054-till the present, and were taken by CYS and handed over to our foster parents until we can be reunited with our "Eccesiastical " parents when this settlement/reconcilliation is finished!

What is "CYS"?May I ask to which Eastern Catholic Church you belong? How was it left "orphaned" by the Great Schism?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

What is "CYS"?May I ask to which Eastern Catholic Church you belong? How was it left "orphaned" by the Great Schism?

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic. The East Slavic Church in the lands of the Polish and Hungarian Kingdoms became a coveted pawn in the East-West Schism. While the people and the churches always believed they were under the Ecumenical Patriarchal mantle, the Polish and Hungarian Catholic rulers wanted a way to solve their "Schismatic" problems, and created the Unia.

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic. The East Slavic Church in the lands of the Polish and Hungarian Kingdoms became a coveted pawn in the East-West Schism. While the people and the churches always believed they were under the Ecumenical Patriarchal mantle, the Polish and Hungarian Catholic rulers wanted a way to solve their "Schisamatic" problems, and created the Unia.

I think it's quite clear that the pope can excommunicate anyone who ... well, I don't want to say "anyone who disagrees with Latin theology", but at least anyone who disagrees with certain key points (e.g. that Mary was assumed into heaven).

But how much different is that from the early church? Technically, isn't it true that a pope (or indeed that any patriarch) back then could have excommunicated (or broken communion with) another patriarch for whatever reason?

Were Popes in the undivided Church able to establish dogmas apart from a council?

Could you please answer brother Peter's question? I mean, how is the Pope's ability to excommunicate different from any other bishop's ability to excommunicate? I assume someone criticized this episcopal prerogative before for brother Peter to ask the question?

Blessings,Marduk

P.S. Yes, after many invitations from former CAF members, I've finally found the time to come here. But I can't post much for the next two weeks.

What exactly do Catholics have against St. Gregory Palamas' theology? Besides the fact that he's after the schism, do they disagree with hesychasm?

Palamas' Theology is contrary to Catholic Thomistic theology which teaches that God is not composed, (as in essence and energies) but rather that God is simple. Further, Palamite theology is in contrast to the Catholic principle of the Beatific vision. While I do no hate Palamas and agree that he was a brilliant man, I don't believe that his theology is compatible with Catholic theology.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

When Eastern Catholics say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.

Wait, how on earth are these people Catholic in any way? Isn't that like saying Western Rite Orthodox accepting all of the above? If they reject all that than what's the point?

When Eastern Catholics say that is ok to reject:1) Purgatory2) The Immaculate Conception3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II4) Original Sin5) Papal Infallibility6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Sonetc.

Wait, how on earth are these people Catholic in any way? Isn't that like saying Western Rite Orthodox accepting all of the above? If they reject all that than what's the point?

A good question. In point of fact, they cannot reject any of the list above according to Rome, despite some (such as the Melkites') assertion that they can.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 08:00:11 AM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I find quite confusing that some Eastern Catholics feel they can ignore "latin" dogmas just because they are Eastern Catholics. How common is this kind of belief among Eastern Catholics?

You're right and to answer your question, not very many!

'We don't believe that; we're really Orthodox... in communion with Rome' is largely an Internet phenomenon you don't see in their parishes. A few people, usually not born Eastern Catholics, passing through on their way to Orthodoxy as was Fr Anastasios' experience.

Most Eastern Catholics are really Roman Catholics with a slightly different Mass, end of story. As somebody on another board said of his Ukrainian Catholic friends, they're fine with being called anything (Ukrainian Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Greek Catholic, Uniate, Roman Catholic) but Russian Orthodox.

I think it's quite clear that the pope can excommunicate anyone who ... well, I don't want to say "anyone who disagrees with Latin theology", but at least anyone who disagrees with certain key points (e.g. that Mary was assumed into heaven).

But how much different is that from the early church? Technically, isn't it true that a pope (or indeed that any patriarch) back then could have excommunicated (or broken communion with) another patriarch for whatever reason?

Yes, he could, but if it was for a dumb reason, he soon found himself out in the cold.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I was an Eastern Catholic and was often told by clergy and laity alike that it is not mandatory to hold the same understandings on issues and doctrines as that of the Latin Church such as: Filoque, papal infallibility, IC, and purgatory, original sin, etc.

It caused a confusing dichotmy in my mind. I thought to myself: "These issues and doctrines are innovations of the post-schism Latin Church. As Eastern Catholics, why do we not come into union with Holy Orthodoxy."

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

I was consistently told to study Orthodoxy, to worship like the Orthodox, to hold Orthodox theological precepts and praxis, but do not be Orthodox---they are schismatics!!!

I was injured by the identity crisis in the Eastern Catholic Church and I was opposed to the innovations of Rome. So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!

Mickey, I have followed your journey to Holy Orthodoxy on many fora and I simply want to chime in and say that we are all greatly blessed by your presence & witness.

Many years!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

DCFS here: Department of Children and Family Services. In the case at hand, I'm not sure it wasn't child abduction.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.

----

Very common. Also, Latin-rite communicants of the Church of Rome are frequently flabbergasted to find that there are Christians from any other Church out there. They tend to see the world as Roman Catholic or Protestant.

Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.

----

Very common. Also, Latin-rite communicants of the Church of Rome are frequently flabbergasted to find that there are Christians from any other Church out there. They tend to see the world as Roman Catholic or Protestant.

That's never been my experience and I have been a Latin Catholic all of my life.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Your posts have got me thinking Mickey.I wonder if some become Eastern Catholic believing that they will be fully accepted by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereas the reality is that neither fully accepts them?

Exactly! There was a time that I felt that I was part of the bridge that would heal the schism. Little did I know that the Eastern Catholics helped to widen the gap!

I think a better way to put it would be "Eastern Catholicism helped to widen the gap".

Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. )

Most of you probably don't know that I began attending a Melkite Catholic parish weekly back in 2002 – so 3,000 or so Divine Liturgies in total, I suppose. Often, in the last 10 years, I felt that I was close to joining the Melkite Church officially. Just several months ago I began to feel that perhaps it wasn't “just a matter of time” until I join officially – that is to say, I began to consider not joining, period.

For the record, I do not wish to provide a full explanation of my reasons for this decision, and nothing I say should be taken as such. (I want to emphasize this, because I'm certain that I will occasionally make statements which a casual observer could interpret as “I'm not becoming Eastern Catholic because of such-and-such.”) I have given some thought to what I could say by way of explanation, if I really tried, and I came to the conclusion that such an attempt could be not only futile but possibly harmful, due to the complexity of the different factors. Let me just say that the reasons are both intellectual and experiential.

On a related but slightly different note, during the last 10 years (or more) I have gradually come to realize that I no longer identify with neo-conservative Catholicism, nor can I support it. (My upbringing was definitely neo-conservative Catholic.) To make another long story short, I now feel that I have “arrived” somewhere – see my profile – that's neither where I started (neo-conservative Catholicism), nor where I thought I was heading for a long time (the Melkite Church).

So that's a little about me and my journey. If you're wondering why you should care … well, I don't really have an answer to that. But at least I kept it short.

Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. )

Most of you probably don't know that I began attending a Melkite Catholic parish weekly back in 2002 – so 3,000 or so Divine Liturgies in total, I suppose. Often, in the last 10 years, I felt that I was close to joining the Melkite Church officially. Just several months ago I began to feel that perhaps it wasn't “just a matter of time” until I join officially – that is to say, I began to consider not joining, period.

For the record, I do not wish to provide a full explanation of my reasons for this decision, and nothing I say should be taken as such. (I want to emphasize this, because I'm certain that I will occasionally make statements which a casual observer could interpret as “I'm not becoming Eastern Catholic because of such-and-such.”) I have given some thought to what I could say by way of explanation, if I really tried, and I came to the conclusion that such an attempt could be not only futile but possibly harmful, due to the complexity of the different factors. Let me just say that the reasons are both intellectual and experiential.

On a related but slightly different note, during the last 10 years (or more) I have gradually come to realize that I no longer identify with neo-conservative Catholicism, nor can I support it. (My upbringing was definitely neo-conservative Catholic.) To make another long story short, I now feel that I have “arrived” somewhere – see my profile – that's neither where I started (neo-conservative Catholicism), nor where I thought I was heading for a long time (the Melkite Church).

So that's a little about me and my journey. If you're wondering why you should care … well, I don't really have an answer to that. But at least I kept it short.

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. )

Most of you probably don't know that I began attending a Melkite Catholic parish weekly back in 2002 – so 3,000 or so Divine Liturgies in total, I suppose. Often, in the last 10 years, I felt that I was close to joining the Melkite Church officially. Just several months ago I began to feel that perhaps it wasn't “just a matter of time” until I join officially – that is to say, I began to consider not joining, period.

For the record, I do not wish to provide a full explanation of my reasons for this decision, and nothing I say should be taken as such. (I want to emphasize this, because I'm certain that I will occasionally make statements which a casual observer could interpret as “I'm not becoming Eastern Catholic because of such-and-such.”) I have given some thought to what I could say by way of explanation, if I really tried, and I came to the conclusion that such an attempt could be not only futile but possibly harmful, due to the complexity of the different factors. Let me just say that the reasons are both intellectual and experiential.

On a related but slightly different note, during the last 10 years (or more) I have gradually come to realize that I no longer identify with neo-conservative Catholicism, nor can I support it. (My upbringing was definitely neo-conservative Catholic.) To make another long story short, I now feel that I have “arrived” somewhere – see my profile – that's neither where I started (neo-conservative Catholicism), nor where I thought I was heading for a long time (the Melkite Church).

So that's a little about me and my journey. If you're wondering why you should care … well, I don't really have an answer to that. But at least I kept it short.

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking.

So the tag line under your posts are a lie? Concervative Roman Catholic?

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking.

If I may ask, how do you define neoconservative Catholics? Is there a distinction between neoconservative and traditionalist Catholics?

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

Is there a distinction between neoconservative and traditionalist Catholics?

Surely you're not serious?

Is there a distinction between denim and french fries?

Actually though, you're in good company. Just in the process of looking for that passage I just quoted, I happened across posts from 2 different posters (ialmisry and Jetavan) asking a similar question as you.